18–25 Trusts—Conditions Since the coming into force of Finance Act 2006 (FA 2006), all trusts created by Will on or after 22 March 2006 (subject to transitional provisions) are broadly treated as ‘relevant property trusts’ for inheritance tax (IHT) purposes unless they fall within one of the four ‘qualifying interest in possession’ (QIIP) categories (see further below). However, there are special rules for trusts for children, which are not subject to the usual relevant property regime. These are trusts whereby the child becomes entitled to the trust assets either on attaining 18 years (which qualify as trusts for bereaved minors (TBM)), or at an age between 18 to 25 years (which qualify as 18–25 Trusts). For background information regarding the taxation of trusts post-FA 2006, see Practice Note: Finance Act 2006 changes to trust taxation [Archived]. Qualifying conditions for an 18–25 Trust The conditions for an 18–25 Trust mirror those for TBM, or a post-FA 2006 A&M trust, except that the age limit is

We have assumed that: • it is not known to whom the farmland has passed following the owner's death and this will be relevant for the purposes of calculating inheritance tax • it is not known whether or not the deceased was receiving any income from the farm and operating it as a farming business We refer you to the following Practice Note: IHT—agricultural property relief, in particular

We have assumed that the deceased was UK resident and domiciled and have not considered the conditions for a foreign domiciliary’s excepted estate. We have further assumed that the reference to potentially exempt transfers (PETs) being ‘created’ refers to the making of PETs to individuals, and not the creation of or transfer into a trust. For information about the criteria for excepted estates where the deceased died on or after 1 January 2022 or in any case for the criteria for foreign domiciliary excepted estates, see Practice Note: IHT—excepted estates. Potentially exempt transfers A gift by an individual to another individual, or to certain classes of favoured settlements is a PET, see section 3A Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (IHTA 1984). A PET made seven years or more before the death of the transferor is exempt from the payment of inheritance tax (IHT). Therefore, almost all absolute lifetime gifts have the potential to be exempt, provided that the donor survives for more than seven years after the

This Q&A assumes that the property which is to be purchased is situated in England The higher 3% rates of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) apply to: • purchases of certain additional residential properties by individuals, and • purchases of residential properties by purchasers who are not individuals regardless of whether they hold any other residential properties The rules regarding the higher 3% SDLT rates are set out in Schedule 4ZA to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003). Although technically not a relief or exemption, the higher rates do not apply where the purchased dwelling replaces an only or main residence (FA 2003, Sch 4ZA Pt 2, para 3(5)). The conditions to be considered differ depending on whether the purchase of the replacement only or main residence takes place before

In answering this Q&A, we have limited our research to cover admissions following issue of proceedings in a non-personal injury context and proceedings in relation to a money claim. For pre-action admissions, see Practice Note: Admissions—pre-action. Admissions CPR 14 sets out the formal procedure for making and withdrawing admissions following issue of proceedings and the consequences of doing so. A party may admit the truth of the whole or any part of another party’s case (CPR 14.1(1)). For more information on admissions, see Practice Note: Admissions. For information on admissions where the only remedy the claimant is seeking is the payment of money, see Practice Note: Admissions. In the situation that you have described, a defendant has admitted part of a claim. There are three options open to the claimant following a part admission in a money claim. On receipt of the part admission, the court will serve a

As a general principle, a Part 36 offer is an offer to pay or accept a single sum of money which can be accepted in accordance with the rules of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), Part 36. In the scenario contemplated by this Q&A, the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 36.14 will apply, specifically CPR 36.14(6) and (7) which provide that where a defendant has made a Part 36 offer to pay a sum and this has been accepted by the claimant then the defendant must pay such sum within 14 days of the date of the claimant accepting the offer (CPR 36.14(6)) and that, if not paid

When a compulsorily registrable lease is granted out of registered land and the tenant fails to apply for registration, or its application fails, the lease ‘does not operate at law', per section 27 of the Land Registration Act 2002. Instead, there may be an equitable lease between the parties (see Walsh v Lonsdale), provided that the remedy of specific performance is available to the parties (governed by the usual principle, see Practice Note: Specific performance of property agreements). If specific performance is not available, the court will consider whether a periodic tenancy has arisen in the usual way (see Practice Note: Periodic tenancies). Otherwise, the parties will have no more than a right to sue for

Planning obligations run with the land and so are enforceable against successors in title. Therefore if the planning authority acquires the land subject to a section 106 it would in theory be liable for the obligations in the agreement. However, any party, including a local authority, cannot covenant with itself, even where that party has two separate functions (eg a role as a local planning authority and a landowner). This is because in the event of a breach of an obligation, the party could not enforce the agreement against itself. It may be worth checking in the first instance the extent of the obligations

Unless and until a right to manage (RTM) company has given the required 30 days’ notice to the landlord pursuant to section 98(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, the RTM company has no statutory duty under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 to respond to an application for consent to assign. Putting it another way, until the requirement to give 30 days’ notice has been complied with the only thing the RTM company can do is withhold consent pending the 30-day notice. See Triplark Ltd v Reiner. It follows so long as the RTM company does nothing pending the 30 days notice’ it has no liability. The remedy available to the assignor lessee under the statutory scheme is to apply for

The compulsory winding up process A compulsory liquidation is commenced by court order. Most frequently, such an action is commenced by a company’s creditors. For information on when creditors can issue a winding-up petition see: Compulsory liquidation—overview at the section entitled ‘By its creditors’. See also Practice Note: Compulsory liquidation—issuing a petition. The winding up process can be issued in the County Court that has jurisdiction to wind up the company if the amount of the company's paid up share capital does not exceed £120,000; alternatively the High Court has the jurisdiction to wind up any company in England and Wales. There are requirements as to the form of the winding up petition, the information that the winding up petition must include, service of the winding-up petition, advertisement of

When a compulsorily registrable lease is granted out of registered land and the tenant fails to apply for registration or its application fails, the lease ‘does not operate at law (Land Registration Act 2002, s 27). Instead, there may be an equitable lease between the parties (see Walsh v Lonsdale), provided that the remedy of specific performance is available to the parties (governed by the usual principle, see Practice Note: Specific performance of property agreements). If specific performance is not available, the court will consider whether a periodic tenancy has arisen in the usual

Assumption It is assumed that the court has specifically ordered the litigant in person (LIP) to file and exchange an agreed budget discussion report. This is rare as when dealing with costs budgets, unless the order orders otherwise, LIP are not required to file and exchange a costs budget (CPR 3.13) and they are specifically exempt from filing an agreed budget discussion report (CPR 3.13(2)). It is therefore important to check that the order specifically orders the LIP to file an agreed costs budget report rather than the order simply providing for parties to file a costs budget report. For guidance, see Practice Notes: Litigant in person costs—costs management and budgeting and Costs budget discussion report (Precedent R). Compliance Failing to comply with court orders can increase the amount of time it takes for a dispute to be resolved and/or the costs of doing